/sci/ - Science & Math

Physics inevitably hits the barrier of philosophy if you try to go too deep. Physics is a method of modeling behavior, physicists need to stop thinking they can find the true nature of things and leave that to philosophers.

>>15482989
On the contrary. The metaphysical implications of physics are entirely different from baseless philosobabble. Ever since quantum has been discovered, philosoplebs have been disqualified from talking about "the true nature of reality" because any such talk requires understanding of scientific and mathematical facts way beyond the intellectual horizon of philosotards. Philosocucks have been degraded to mere passive observers of big mathematician/physicist cock plowing through all the metaphysics the philosocucks themselves will never be able to touch.

>>15482995
Physics is not about "the true nature of reality".
It's about modeling reality so we can make accurate predictions.

The only philosophy physicists need is that of methodology of science, but people like in OP's picture deliberately go against it - they're doing "science" backwards - they create entities they have zero evidence (and need) for and then try to convince others that they are true because their descriptions sound cool.

They've decided to abandon science and became storytellers.

>>15482995
>he thinks empirical observations are capable of determining anything at all about reality
lol
lmao
philosophers don't have to learn jack-shit about quantum physics because it's just as likely a deceitful god is directly hijacking my senses and falsely constructing an impression of a "universe" that does not exist as it is that "quantum physics" is "real" (whatever the hell that word may mean)

>>15483000
>my theory is not compatible with repeatable observation? that doesn't make it wrong! on the contrary, that means it's intellectually superior!
Anti-intellectual delusion.

>>15483006
>why yes I'm just going to blindly assume that everything I observe is objective truth and that the human consciousness is an infallible observer
Who's deluding himself here?

>>15482985
>>15482989
the true nature of philosophy is not to find new scientific discoveries, but to discover how to ..think.

math and physics is fun and games until you have to analyze if your whole paradigm is wrong.

>>15483010
>u cannot know nuffin

>>15483018
this. people may waste their entire lives on something "smart" on math and physics,
but if they are good philosophers they may judge their entire approach better.

>>15483018
>>15483022
How does "philosophy" help me find out if my paradigm is wrong? Please elaborate with an example and explain in detail how the paradigm shift was caused by "philosophy".

>>15483026
because the scientific method will tell you to be correct in your chosen scope, it will not tell you if your choice of scope is correct.

the choice of scope is by definition subjective because it depends on your subjective desires on what you actually want.

>>15483028
Subjective? It's my personal decision based on my own preferences? Then "philosophy" won't help me here.

>>15483006
>>15483010
Observation, particularly of patterns, will lead one to realize how cyclical everything truly is. But only to our observation. Patterns and time; causality is ordained to abide all possibilities within the infinite time scope. Science grasps at the average of a miniscule compendium of events. Continuity is taken for granted. That adherence to contextual consistency is by its very nature unable to undertake or measure the more exotic phenomena of existence. The very act of observation changes the most delicate of mechanisms. It is moot to argue one or the other, for both must be married and divorced simultaneously. All we can do is measure and reflect on all that we can learn.

>>15483028
How can the scope be "correct" or "not correct" if it's subjective? Correctness would imply objective criteria. Why are you baselessly talking out of your ass if you have no idea what you're even talking about? I hate pseud midwits and their inconsistencies.

>>15483033
NTA, nothing about "it will not tell you if your choice of scope is correct" entails that a correct choice of scope exists.

>>15483034
If he didn't imply the existence of correctness criteria then this whole sentence is just meaningless nonsense. Might as well have said "it will not tell you if your choice of scope poopoo peepee".

>>15483026
>Please elaborate with an example
Frege was so butthurt over not being able to understand Hegel that he invented symbolic logic to prove him wrong. Then Gödel btfo Russell and Whitehead by using symbolic logic to prove Hegel right like three generations later.

>>15483037
No, Anon, the extremely obvious interpretation is that there is no "correct" scope.

>>15483044
If there is no correct scope then of course nobody can tell you that your scope is correct. In particular philosophy won't make a difference then. So why post such a useless statement in the first place?

>>15483051
>So why post such a useless statement in the first place?
Presumably because the poster believes that anti-philosophical proponents of the scientific method are unaware of or disagree with the notion that there is no correct scope. Given your apparent difficulty in grasping such a simple concept, such a belief would seem merited.

>>15483053
I do indeed disagree and I'm fairly certain that you do not have a sufficiently refined idea of what you mean by "scope" in this context. At best you're playing language games hiding behind intentionally vague statements. Nothing in your or his posts resembles even remotely an answer to my initial question, let alone a convincing defense of philosophy.

>>15483065
Anon, you haven't even addressed my response to your question. Your replies to the other Anon indicate that you either lack the reading comprehension necessary to engage in fruitful discussion, or else you're arguing in bad faith. Given the topic of the thread assuming the latter is merited, but I will still assume the former out of courtesy.

>>15483076
Which response? Link the post.

>>15483079
>>15483040

>>15483040
>>15483082
Those historical anecdotes are off-topic. They have nothing to do with science or math. The fact that you consider this a relevant answer only shows how much of a solipsistic circlejerk philosophy is with no influence outside of said circlejerk. I cannot comment on the historical accuracy of your post since I've never read Hegel but I can say with certainty that none of this had any influence on science or math.

>>15483093
>Gödel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with math
kek we're done here

>>15482985
Big black dicks delving into virgin white buttholes is based and red pilled.

>>15483096
How do you use the theorems to make predictions in the real world? Oh, you don’t? Then it’s not math.

>>15483096
Gödel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with philosophy and nothing with your historical pseud factoids. No engagement with philosophy was required to prove them. They are purely mathematical statements. Gödel's personal motivation for studying logic in the first place is irrelevant, and this is certainly not an example of a paradigm shift caused by philosophy. You are artificially and dishonestly creating a highly questionable chain of causal events from some philosophical dispute 100 years earlier to Gödel's hypothetical subjective motivation. This is like giving credit to an Australopithecus ancestor a few millions years ago for the invention of the internet.

>>15483103
>>15483103
>How do you use the theorems to make predictions in the real world?
Since it's the logic of dialectics, you use it to make predictions about the outcomes of dialectical processes, such as conversations taking place in the real world (specifically, conversations in which the participants disagree about the subject of discussion but are mutually committed to arriving at the truth of the matter via discussion, e.g., an internet conversation in which all participants are acting in good faith). So just find a dispute that results from a syntactical ambiguity and simplify the dispute to a statement in the form "this statement is unprovable." Recognizing the truth of the simplified statement resolves the syntactic ambiguity from which the dispute originated but necessarily entails another syntactic ambiguity, to be resolved at another point in time.

As an example we might work on together, you and I would appear to be linking the signs "mathematics" and "philosophy" to different semantic referents. Up until this post I wasn't sure if you were the Anon who thinks all logic is math or if you were the Anon who thinks math doesn't include logic at all; you both post in anti-philosophy threads. Now I have a clearer idea of the nature of the syntactic ambiguity in play.

>>15483104
>I haven't read it
>I'm proud of my total ignorance about it
>but I KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that it doesn't mean that!

>>15483151
Math is a closed system. I haven't read "50 Shades of Grey" either, just like I haven't read Hegel. But simply from knowing math itself I know that Shades of Grey had no influence on math. The developments within math can be traced to internal discoveries and discussions not dependent on any philosophical nonsense.

No

>>15483162
>>15483162
>Math is a closed system.
Are you seriously trying to lecture me about what math is without even knowing what a clopen set is?

>>15483174
>finite human life-time
Baseless assumption, it may be that the many-worlds interpretation is true and for each person there is at least one iteration of the timeline they live infinitely and thus could consider all possible modifications of the moral conundrum

>>15483185
Why are you projecting your own ignorance onto me?

>>15482985
if you think that you can escape philosophy then you're retarded. you cannot. but really everything should just be called science. even the biggest questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?". i don't CARE if it can't be answered, it's still a question for science. science just means knowledge more or less.

quantum mechanics has its own philosophical commitments (namely the retarded assumption that free will exists). you cannot build a theory without metaphysical assumptions.

>>15483146
I’m neither of those anons. My philosophy concerning math and science is simple: if it’s not practical and falsifiable, then it’s nothing more than mental masturbation. Obviously people can choose to do math as a “spiritual activity” if they wish, but I would rather our brightest minds work on something useful instead. It depends on your fundamental desires, and we may have different goals, but if we agree that math should be used to solve problems in the real world, then things like Gödel’s theorems are not as important as they seem.
> this statement is unprovable
See this is just bullshit to me. When a statement references itself and nothing else, it is entirely devoid of meaning, or practicality (these two are virtually the same thing). You can’t conduct a test to see if this is true. Whereas with a statement like “x + y = y + x” I can actually test this, in the real world, with any two rational numbers x and y that I like. And to know this fact is of course very useful. But “this statement is provable” is just nonsense and no one talks like this for a good reason.

And beyond that, it makes no sense for the statement to be “true” but not “provable,” because in order for something to be true *within a system*, it has to be proven *within that system*. Otherwise “true” loses all meaning. Truth and provability are the same thing. So not only is this statement nonsense, it’s contradictory nonsense.
> So just find a dispute that results from a syntactical ambiguity and simplify the dispute to a statement in the form "this statement is unprovable."
Oh really? How exactly do you plan to do that? I have never seen such a method used in any disagreement.

>>15483294
What system are you invoking and why are your statements true within it?

>>15482985
Thought you posted Fox Mulder for a moment there.

>>15483323
To say that a statement is true means that we have proven that statement to be reliably useful for achieving our goals. Truth is subject to selection pressures; those who have false beliefs will eventually “die out.” So you can prove my statements by testing them. If one society of mathematicians believes it’s important to deal with practical and falsifiable math, math that can be proven or disproven empirically, and another decides it wants to play around with actual infinities and self-contradictory meaningless statements, then we can predict which society will produce more contributions to their society. We don’t even have to predict it, because we can just compare mathematicians and scientists who study actual problems with the mathematicians and scientists who study non-problems, and who contribute absolutely nothing at all to society. I value the progress and advancement of my species, hence why these statements are true for me.

Back to reality : . Thoughts are put on a pedestal only by theist or atheist rationalists...rationality is a mental construct by rationalists (read gurus) to pass their brain farts as true. The reality is that there is imagination and the dichotomy imagination-rationality is a fantasy by mental midgets. There is no rational thoughts, there is only schizo thoughts. There is no magical rational thoughts which will tell which thoughts is rational or schizo.It's all schizo. This is why rationalist vermins will always lose against the empiricists.

>>15483373
>"rationality" isn't real
we're in agreement

>>15483294
>I'm not a mathematician and I'm frustrated that mathematicians don't do what I want them to do
Okay.
>How exactly do you plan to do that?
Real-world example. One of the ideas to have come out of feminism is that a person who grows up under oppressive social conditions doesn't have authentic preferences, but instead preferences formed by their conditions of oppression. So, according to this idea, women who enjoy being tied up and spanked don't truly prefer those activities, but only prefer them as an adaptation to patriarchy, and would not prefer those activities absent those conditions. One response has been that a person's preferences can still be considered authentically theirs (and hence "true") if in expressing those preferences the person is free of arbitrary domination which impedes their autonomy, with the idea being that justice enacted under a (small-r) republican government isn't arbitrary.

This domain-specific test of truth (a preference is true if the person holding it has autonomy) permits an easy Gödel-sentence lay-up: "I prefer to lack autonomy." Now, remember that stuff like BDSM is compatible with the specified notion of autonomy, so saying "I prefer to lack autonomy" doesn't mean that I like to be tied up and spanked, it means I like when my likes and dislikes are ignored.

You could take this a few different ways. An obvious one is to just get more specific with time indexes and defined intervals for expressed preferences. Another is to give an example of what preferring non-autonomy might look like. Such as, some might say that mentally ill people lack autonomy, that their illness robs them of their autonomy and therefore treating them, restoring their autonomy, is not an act of arbitrary domination. Nonetheless, the patient might prefer to avoid treatment, i.e., to lack autonomy. Accordingly, I predict that further discourse along these lines would result in dispelling the syntactic ambiguity introduced with regard to autonomy.

>>15483294
>>15483443
Sorry, the
>you're not a mathematician
part was mean-spirited and I shouldn't have said it. You may very well be for all I know. I disagree with you but I didn't need to be a jerk about it, so, sorry.

>>15483443
> I'm not a mathematician and I'm frustrated that mathematicians don't do what I want them to do
basically
> women who enjoy being tied up and spanked don't truly prefer those activities..
The question is rather vague: what does it mean to “truly prefer” something? If it means that they would prefer it under different conditions, then we can test this by simply observing women’s behavior in various societies with different social structures. You can observe women who switched from one culture to another, etc. If we mean to ask whether or not the preference is healthy, we can again test this by observing the quality of life and relationships of these women.

If we define autonomy to mean the ability to attain our preferences without external impediments (this is quite a relative definition), then the woman who prefers to be tied up does not have her “autonomy” limited. So if a woman says “I prefer to not have autonomy” then this is just a contradiction, unless we actually interpret what she truly means to say, which is something along the lines of “in certain conditions, I like to be physically restricted by attractive men and used for their purposes.” And there is clearly no room for contradiction here. Gödel’s theorem is not needed whatsoever here.

>>15483487
>If we define autonomy
Please refer back to the last sentence in >>15483443
>Accordingly, I predict that further discourse along these lines would result in dispelling the syntactic ambiguity introduced with regard to autonomy.
You might not think that this is a particularly significant prediction, but it is a prediction and it was correct.
There's a bit of irony here in that I actually had no intention of discussing the example itself, I simply meant it to be an example.
>So if a woman says “I prefer to not have autonomy” then this is just a contradiction, unless we actually interpret what she truly means to say, which is something along the lines of “in certain conditions, I like to be physically restricted by attractive men and used for their purposes.”
That's the
>An obvious one is to just get more specific with time indexes and defined intervals for expressed preferences
option in the post you're replying to.
>Gödel’s theorem is not needed whatsoever here.
Who said anything about necessity? The point is that Gödel's theorem models how this whole conversation works, and if you understand that, you can predict how the conversation will go, as I have just demonstrated twice.

>>15483664
You don’t need Gödel’s theorem to analyze the meaning of a word, to get a practical knowledge of some question or topic. My way is better

>>15483034
If there is no correct choice in scope why would you need philosophy? You could just get one of those buttons that always says "no" and get the same result

>>15482985
Here depicted: Howard Stein after writing a two-page footnote outlining the manifold ways in which OP is a faggot.

There is one thing more pathetic than philosophers with no scientific training weighing in on contemporary metaphysical issues: midwit lost in math physicists fumbling blindly in their mediocre metaphysics without realizing that that is what they are engaging in, all the time being too fucking arrogant to open a book on a field they know absolutely nothing about.

The divorce of physics from philosophy in the post-war era infected physics with cancer, culminating in string theory's most outrageous excesses.